On Sun, 2004-02-08 at 20:29, Eunice Chang wrote: > On Sun, 2004-02-08 at 14:08, Heather Flanagan wrote: > > You know, there a fair bit of documentation on how to handle a bug that > > results in a crash, but not much in the way of dealing with a bug that > > is merely annoying, or even just a feature request. A suggestion for > > some other time. > > > > And be that as it may for now, looking at this latest example of > > bug-ness, the gent isn't reporting a crash, just an annoying "feature". > > Priority and severity are where they should be. I'd probably add the > > keyword "usability", then mark it as either assign or reassign - > > thoughts on that? > > >From dealing with a few of those bugs on Thursday, here's what I know, > the "annoying-feature" bugs usually involve: > 1) looking for duplicates (like, someone's made this complaint, or > there's a reason why the feature is there) > 2) if appropriate, cc'ing to usability-maint bugzilla gnome org > 3) if appropriate, severity == enhancement > 4) if appropriate, move to GNOMEVER2.5x > 5) repeat, lather, rinse :) > > Feel free to amend/add to the suggestions above. I think the most important missing thing is: 3a) Set severity and priority to most appropriate values by looking at http://bugzilla.gnome.org/bug_status.html. Unfortunately this is the most difficult bit to get consistent. -- Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part